Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Order : 23.04.2025 vs T&T Projects Limited A Company … on 23 April, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:312-DB
Serial Nos.04
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Arb.A.No.2/2024
Date of Order : 23.04.2025
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., (a Government of India undertaking)
having its registered office at B-9 Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi, 110016 and Regional Headquarter at Lapalang Dongtieh, Lower
Nongrah, Shillong East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793006 represented
by Shri Jeremy Simon Nongrum, S/o Shri T. Khraw Kur Marbaniang, Chief
Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited R/o Nongrum Villa,
Motinagar, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District Meghalaya.
..... Appellant
Vs.
T&T Projects Limited a company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956 having its registered office at T3, Parmeswari Building, Chatribari
Road, Guwahati-781001. ..... Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Kumar, Advocate General with
Mr. N. Khera, Adv
Mr. S. Pandey, Adv
For the Respondent : Mr. R. Hussain, Adv with
Ms. M.M. Shullai, Adv
F
i) Whether approved for Yes
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication No
in press:
Page 1 of 5
2025:MLHC:312-DB
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
Considering the short issues involved in this appeal and the utmost
cooperation this Court has received from learned counsel appearing for the
parties by making very fair submissions, we have been able to hear out this
appeal today and are disposing of it at the very first hearing.
The dispute between the parties is with regard to an arbitral award
in respect of claims No.2, 4 and 10. In claim No.10, the respondent asked for
release of the bank guarantee for ₹33,71,695/- dated 25th February, 2011
issued by State Bank of India, Fancy Bazar Branch, Guwahati. By his award
dated 20th September, 2019, the learned arbitrator has directed the appellant
to pay to the respondent the value of the said bank guarantee.
Admittedly, the bank guarantee was never encashed. Upon its
expiry it was discharged and returned to the respondent. Learned counsel for
the respondent confirms this factual position and admits that this part of the
award was made by mistake.
This error in fact finding is so fundamentally wrong and glaring
that it can be categorised as patent illegality on the face of the award. The
award in respect of claim No.10 is set aside.
Page 2 of 5
2025:MLHC:312-DB
In claim No.2, the respondent asked for release of ₹33,50,845/-
allegedly deducted from six running bills at the rate of five per cent on
granting extension of contract. According to the appellant, the amount
retained was ₹22,60,174/- according to the records. Learned Advocate
General on behalf of his client is prepared to give an undertaking to return
this admitted amount. However, learned counsel for the respondent
maintains that the retained money mentioned in the award is correct.
Now, this Court cannot go into the factual dispute with regard to
the retained sum. Neither can it rewrite the award by adjudicating and
inserting the correct sum.
We think that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the ends
of justice would be subserved if ₹22,60,174/-, if the admitted amount is paid
by the appellant to the respondent within four weeks from date. We order
accordingly.
It would move our conscience if we ignore the submission of the
learned Advocate General and affirm this part of the award. Especially so
when no arguments on this issue is recorded in the award and no reasons
forthcoming in support of the award.
The disputed amount (₹33,50,845 – ₹22,60,174) may be remanded
to the learned arbitrator and re-adjudicated by him.
Page 3 of 5
2025:MLHC:312-DB
Our observations, reasons and direction are similar with regard to
the award in respect of claim No.4 which is similar in nature to claim No.2.
The claimed amount is ₹47,39,450/- and the admitted amount is ₹31,17,364/-
. We direct the appellant to pay the admitted amount of ₹31,17,364/- to the
respondent within four weeks from date. The disputed amount (₹47,39,450 –
₹31,17,364) is also remanded to the learned arbitrator for re-adjudication.
The learned arbitrator is requested to make and publish a
supplementary award within six months from date. The award is partly
upheld and partly set aside. The award may now be enforced by execution of
the award on mutual arrangement between learned Advocates-on-Record for
the parties.
The Advocates-on-Record for the parties are appointed Joint
Special Officers for the purpose of receiving the deposit of ₹95 lakhs with
the Registrar General of this Court, further to an earlier order of this Court.
The Registrar General shall comply with this direction.
The Joint Special Officers shall open a joint account to
be operated jointly in State Bank of India, Main Branch,
Shillong. The said amount of ₹ 95 lakhs should be deposited there by
the Joint Special Officers. The fund wholly or partially is to be used
Page 4 of 5
2025:MLHC:312-DB
to satisfy the award or that portion of it which remains unpaid. The balance if
any shall be refunded to the appellant.
This procedure in execution shall cover the award, as upheld by the
Court and not any supplementary award to be made on remand for which
separate proceedings in execution may be taken out.
(W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
23.04.2025
"Lam DR-PS"
Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2025.04.23 06:24:24 IST
[ad_1]
Source link